Tech —

Microsoft Surface: a gentle kick in the teeth of the OEMs

But Redmond isn't killing the PC as we know it just yet.

If you want something done properly, as the old adage goes, you have to do it yourself.

For the longest time, the failure to produce a good, usable Windows tablet was twofold. Microsoft lacked an operating system usable with finger input, and the PC OEMs failed to produce devices that were thin enough and light enough to be comfortable when handheld.

The first problem is, to a greater or lesser extent, addressed by Windows 8 and its ARM counterpart, Windows RT. But the software is nothing without the hardware to run it on.

PC hardware is plagued with mediocrity, but to a large extent it can get away with it. The simple fact is, the PC is an entrenched, dominant tool. It doesn't have to wow anyone or win them over, because it already has.

Tablets are different. The market is still new, the exact limits and roles that the form factor can fill are still being determined, and only one company has achieved any real tablet success with a tightly integrated package of software and custom-designed hardware.

To allow Windows 8 to compete with iOS, Microsoft needs hardware to compete with the iPad. Bad hardware would jeopardize Redmond's ability to play in the tablet space, but the PC OEMs have established for themselves a track record of producing little else. And while many of the OEMs have produced Android tablets to try to compete with the iPad, they've also consistently failed to match its quality.

A Consistent Form Factor

The news coming out of Computex earlier this month suggested that their Windows 8 and Windows RT tablets were going to be more of the same. This is not to say that the concepts on show were necessarily bad; units such as MSI's Slider S20 are interesting enough ideas. But whether weird sliders, convertible tablet/laptop hybrids, or just plain tablets, a couple of things are clear.

First, the OEMs don't really seem to be sure what form factor to go for. There's a sense of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, which is why we see so much variety. Microsoft, in contrast, is quite unambiguously following the basic iPad form: a tablet with a magnetically-attached lightweight cover, just with the twist that the cover doubles up as a keyboard too.

Second, and a direct consequence of the scattergun approach, none of the devices on show seems to demonstrate the same level of attention to detail that the Surface has.

The risk of trusting the PC OEMs is one that Microsoft was unwilling to take. Hence Surface, a pair of best-of-breed Windows 8 tablets.

The Windows business model is predicated on selling the operating system to third parties, and leaving the actual task of system-building to those third parties. We're so used to Microsoft's existence and the success of Windows that it's easy to forget that it's actually something that's essentially unique. Apple sells hardware/software combinations. So does IBM with its z/OS mainframe platform and its AIX UNIX. So too does Oracle, with Solaris (though Sun did of course dabble with opening up the operating system), and HP, with HP-UX. The same was true historically, too; Amigas were paired with AmigaOS, Ataris with TOS, NeXT workstations with NeXTStep, and so on and so forth.

While some of these operating systems had shared elements—the various UNIX platforms share a common, if convoluted, heritage, and customized versions of Digital Research's CP/M and GEM found their way onto numerous platforms—the practice of shipping a single operating system designed for a family of compatible devices available from multitudinous vendors (the "PC"), and making a tremendous amount of money in so doing, remains unique to Microsoft.

This is a business model that needs the OEMs. Without the OEMs, there's nothing to run Windows on, and no Windows business.

That doesn't mean that the relationship with the OEMs is always a happy one. Redmond wanted tight control of the Windows 95 desktop, preventing OEMs from customizing it or preinstalling software of their own choosing, and suffered a lengthy and expensive lawsuit as a result. But even then, Microsoft never challenged the fundamental role of the OEMs.

The Surface machines turn Microsoft's business model on its head.

Sending OEMS a mandate to improve

Microsoft took pains at its announcement to highlight that it had built hardware before. This is true; it's been building mice for 30 years, keyboards for 15, and of course has the Xbox 360. Microsoft even explained that it had built hardware to help sell software—the original Microsoft Mouse was created and sold to partner Windows 1.0.

But what Microsoft hasn't done before is compete with the OEMs directly. It's always left the task of actually building PCs to third parties. And now it's muscling in on their turf.

As an indictment of the PC OEMs, Surface is damning. Microsoft isn't even waiting for the OEMs to try (and, quite possibly, fail) to build viable Windows 8 tablets before stepping in with its own system (as it did when it killed the PlaysForSure scheme and released the Zune media player). Instead, Redmond is preempting their failure and ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet.

To make matters even worse for the OEMs, it seems that they didn't get much of a warning that Surface was coming. According to Reuters, all they got was a vague phone call from Steven Sinofsky, president of the Windows division, a couple of days before the unveiling.

Microsoft's dissatisfaction with the OEMs is plain, and the OEMs aren't happy about the way they've been treated, but all is not lost for them just yet. Microsoft has fired its first shot at the OEMs, but it's a warning shot: at the moment, Surface looks like it's more Nexus than it is iPad.

Many early Android phones were pretty nasty. The Nexus One, developed by HTC according to Google's specification, sporting Google branding, and sold by Google online, was an important device in Android's evolution. Not because it sold in great numbers, but because it set the standard: Android devices had to be at least that good, with the same features, fast processor, plentiful RAM, and so on. The Nexus One also ran the stock Android operating system, without carrier-provided crapware or OEM front-ends. It showed Android in the best possible light: the operating system as Google wanted it to look and act, with all the hardware necessary to support the latest features.

Subsequent Nexus-branded phones have played a similar role: showcasing Android and introducing new hardware capabilities, acting as standard-setters and benchmarks.

In a surprising parallel to Google's initial Nexus One sales effort, Microsoft too is going the online route. When announcing the Surface, Microsoft said that it would be sold direct, through its online store and its handful of bricks-and-mortar retail sites.

If Microsoft were Apple, with its 364 stores worldwide, including 246 in the US alone, this would be a serious and highly visible retail presence. But Microsoft isn't Apple; it currently has only 18 stores (with another couple opening soon), all of them in the US. The company said that it may also sell Surface internationally online, but didn't specify which specific markets.

The net result of this is that lots of people won't be able to buy Surface at all, and even within the US, many people won't be able to get their hands on the thing to try it out before they buy it.

If Microsoft wanted to seriously challenge the OEMs, that would be a big problem. For a new tablet that has such a strong emphasis on physical design, and with a new operating system that has to be used to be fully appreciated, getting these things in front of consumers so they can try them out for themselves is essential.

But if Surface is aimed at the OEMs—telling them "we can do this just as well as you can, if we have to"—and setting them a challenge—"your tablets have to be at least this good"—then the limited availability isn't necessarily such a big deal. As long as the OEMs heed the warning and raise their game, so that Redmond can be assured that bad hardware won't jeopardized Windows 8's success, Microsoft could safely keep Surface operating as a small-scale operation, playing the Nexus role without upsetting the PC market.

And if they don't?

Microsoft has no shortage of relationships with retailers, both large and small, thanks to its mice, keyboards, and, of course, games console. If it wants widespread retail availability, it's there for the taking. The only limits to Microsoft's reach will be the speed at which it can build the tablets, and the willingness of consumers to actually buy them.

The OEMs have been warned, and the ball is, for the time being, in their court. The only question is, will they listen?

Surprisingly, the early answer appears to be "no." Reuters has reported that Oliver Ahrens, Acer's senior VP and president for Europe, Middle East and Africa, believes that Microsoft is making a failed attempt to mimic Apple. He's quoted as saying "I don't think it will be successful because you cannot be a hardware player with two products"—an astonishing stance, given that Apple is dominating the Tablet market with just two products, the "new iPad" for the high-end, the iPad 2 for everyone else. Two products, and Apple has an entire market locked up.

If other OEMs share Acer's policy of not simply ignoring, but actively rubbishing the only strategy that's proven to be effective then a broader offering of Surface is not just likely; it is an essential inevitability.

254 Reader Comments

The great contradiction. OEM's coerced into not using other software by MS and now having to compete with MS hardware. Something has got to give.

MS is late to the ARM game. History does not indicate they have the capacity to make reliable software on the first attempt. They will have to succeed out of the box. They will not be allowed a B release, or a SP3.

The great contradiction is rooted in a dying business model, and a new portable reality.

How many "iPad Killer" tablets have come and gone in the last 2 years? It has to literally be hundreds, right? It's insane how they keep throwing anything they can think up in the shower that morning out there. Microsoft is at least trying to take the Apple path. In typical Microsoft way, their version of Apple imitation is awkward (2 incompatible tablets instead of just 1, 2 different keyboards, announcing a product that clearly doesn't even work yet, with no pricing and few other details). Yet, at least they are trying. 2 products is at least a bit more focused than the dozens other Android manufacturers throw out there, and the cover keyboard at least looks like something new that could actually be useful. Their presentation style at least made an attempt (again, awkwardly) to forge a desire for the device, a human connection.

How well did Microsoft do with Zune? How well did Microsoft do with MSN? How well did Microsoft do with Bing? How well did Microsoft do with Kin? How well did Microsoft do with Windows Phone? Microsoft has done very well in the business world with Windows and Office. That success largely came from a reasonably decent UI, a set of Office applications that worked together to exploit that UI, and installation programs that could generally be counted on to install new versions of the product without any substantial problems. The skills that Microsoft depended on for its success have been leaving the company or been pushed into the background. They have been replaced by a bunch of wannabes who think they can wave a wand and succeed in competing with Apple. Their effort with the new tablet may not be too bad of an idea. They have been developing technology for devices for many years now. Maybe their investment in that research will turn out to make a difference. It is certainly worth a try even if there is a substantial chance of a big failure. What is foolish is to disrupt their standard PC business with new technology before it has anything major to offer to their core customer base. Trying the Windows runtime on a shiny new Microsoft tabliet is a reasonable idea. Forcing that technology on their business customers before there is a clearly established benefit to it is stupid. The reckless way that Microsoft has pursued Windows 8 suggests that their development process is out of control and that there is a very good chance of a Kin style failure when they actually deliver it.

The Zune HD is probably the best media player ever made. If the Surface can be at a similar quality level then other OEMs won't have a chance.It's really their fault though, why can Microsoft make such great hardware and other companies can't? Lenovo and Samsung make great laptops but everyone else is just churning out low quality or overpriced rubbish.

How many "iPad Killer" tablets have come and gone in the last 2 years? It has to literally be hundreds, right? It's insane how they keep throwing anything they can think up in the shower that morning out there. Microsoft is at least trying to take the Apple path. In typical Microsoft way, their version of Apple imitation is awkward (2 incompatible tablets instead of just 1, 2 different keyboards, announcing a product that clearly doesn't even work yet, with no pricing and few other details). Yet, at least they are trying. 2 products is at least a bit more focused than the dozens other Android manufacturers throw out there, and the cover keyboard at least looks like something new that could actually be useful. Their presentation style at least made an attempt (again, awkwardly) to forge a desire for the device, a human connection.

FFS, Microsoft has never referred to this as an iPad killer. That's wholly the media's doing. I could be wrong, but I can't think of a single company press release where they've referred to their tablet offerings as "iPad killers."

----------------------------------------------------

On topic for the article, I consider the Surface to be a swift kick in the ass (as in getting them motivated, not trying to hurt them) for the OEMs and their "race to the bottom" bullshit they've been pulling for the last decade or so. The only premium Windows laptops you can get these days are business notebooks (not that I mind too terribly). I spent about 2,400 dollars on a Dell Precision M4600 because 1) The hardware is necessary for my CAD software and 2) Because there isn't any god damn consumer laptops that come with the same build or screen quality.

I have no problem paying a premium price for a premium product. Apparently most Windows OEMs have issue with that in the consumer space. Hopefully this will help turn that around.

How well did Microsoft do with Zune? How well did Microsoft do with MSN? How well did Microsoft do with Bing? How well did Microsoft do with Kin? How well did Microsoft do with Windows Phone?.

Conveniently leaving out the Xbox I see. And as much as I don't use Bing, it does have the second largest marketshare in the U.S. It is a distant second, but I don't see anyone else even remotely trying to compete.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed — and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed — and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed —

which has nothing to do with the hardware.

Quote:

and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

We got to use it enough to know that the weight and thickness are right, the solid feel remarkable, the screen high quality, and the touch screen responsive.

It might not be perfect, but I'm not making that claim. The tablet itself

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed — and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

Perhaps Windows Phone 7 is a good answer here. Based on that, I don't think assuming the Surface may be good is unreasonable. It probably is, though, unreasonable to assume it will be a market success.

Since people seemed confused about it in the last Surface article, I'd like to remind everyone that there will also be a software keyboard. You will not need to use the cover's keyboard in all situations.

The only premium Windows laptops you can get these days are business notebooks (not that I mind too terribly). I spent about 2,400 dollars on a Dell Precision M4600 because 1) The hardware is necessary for my CAD software and 2) Because there isn't any god damn consumer laptops that come with the same build or screen quality.

The best selling premium Windows notebooks are...MacBooks/Airs/Pros. Buy one and install Windows.

I think if MS wanted to send a message to OEMs then it should have done so earlier this year, not a few weeks after they all announced their fall product line.

If Surface was a reference design then MS should have shared what they were doing with OEMs and launched it before or along side OEMs at computex, so then everyone could compare all the new OEM models against the reference.

Surface is nothing like the Android "nexus" devices from Google. For the nexus devices Google partners up with a OEM to create it, with surface MS created it in secret on its own and Google uses the nexus device to show off Android especially a new version of the Android OS, and MS didn't.

OEMs are confused on what devices to make for Windows 8 and really I can't blame them, because MS seems confused on what kind of OS it wanted to created from the start with its hybrid touch based mobile OS and non-touch desktop OS hybrid that are complete opposites.

I see Surface as MS trying to justify its hybrid OS approach with Windows 8 which has fractured the windows community and to sell the idea behind the OS.

To the actual matter at hand, I think Surface is an excellent thing. Even if it's horribly supply-constrained and unbuyable, if it manages to motivate the Dells and HPs of the world to elevate their craft, then it's a wild success.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed — and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

They seem to think quite highly of it, and they certainly had enough of a hands-on to make that assertion.

No, they got what the rest of the media got. A minute or two with no interaction. None of their review text indicates they used the device, it's all regurgitated promo material from Microsoft.

The Surface may be great, but it may fail terribly. Right now, there's no way to tell and the media are hyping this as hard as they can, falling all over themselves to be the site that gets the page views.

No review or preview matters until the thing is released or at worst, heading into production. Any article that pretends otherwise is not being honest.

I'll clarify my position though (because these days if you advise caution, people often brand you a troll) - I really want the Surface to be a great device that sells well. I want it to spur Apple to make the iPad even better. I want the competition that has not existed in any real sense in the tablet space. If that all comes to pass, users will be far better off, whether they be Windows 8 users, iOS users or Android users.

I see the media are hyping the Surface in the same way they hype new Apple stuff. What's missing is the same critical assessment from the the people who are critical of Apple stuff. All we've seen so far are pretty speeches, some video and a crashing unit.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed — and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

I've been thinking similar thoughts.

1. If the touch-sensitive keyboard is so much better than typing on an on-screen keyboard, why not just run with that instead of muddying the waters with two types of keyboards? Can't you throw the OEMs the bone of producing alternative keyboards, like Apple does with the iPad?

2. People are saying they don't need to see software running on the Pro version "... because it runs Windows software, and I already know all I need to know about the software I'm already using." Of course, none of the people saying that are running their software on the -final- version of Win8, on a 10-inch screen.

3. The RT [arm] version seems to be aiming at the iPad, while the Pro [Intel] version seems to be aimed at the MBA & Ultrabooks. Makes sense to me, but I'm tired of all the "...now I'll finally be able to -produce- content, instead of just -consume- it..." crud being spewed around.

"PC OEMs failed to produce devices that were thin enough and light enough to be comfortable when handheld"

PC OEMs can hardly be faulted for not making Windows ARM tablets, since Microsoft has yet to release an ARM OS to them. Also these same OEMs have shown they can make ARM hardware lighter and thinner than an iPad. So they aren't the problem.

Even on the Intel side. PC OEM have made devices the same weight as the PRO, See the Samsung Series 7 Slate. It weighs the same 2LBs as the new Microsoft Pro, despite having a larger screen. If 2LBs is a failure, Microsoft has the same failure on it's hands.

"While many of the OEMs have produced Android tablets to try to compete with the iPad, they've also consistently failed to match its quality."

I'd have to disagree with that. My ASUS TF201 is well built and is every bit as good if not better than the iPad. The only issue with the tablet is the GPS but that's something I'll let slide. Microsoft's Surface is an interesting device but I don't believe it's quality is any better than any tablet out there. Many premium tablets match the quality and build of an iPad so I don't see why that statement was used.

I see Surface as MS trying to justify its hybrid OS approach with Windows 8 which has fractured the windows community and to sell the idea behind the OS.

I see Surface as MS realizing that in a coming age of computing appliances like smartphones and iPads, you don't need a specialized software OS vendor. MS is afraid the very reason for their existence is disappearing, and they are trying to make themselves relevant.

"PC OEMs failed to produce devices that were thin enough and light enough to be comfortable when handheld"

PC OEMs can hardly be faulted for not making Windows ARM tablets, since Microsoft has yet to release an ARM OS to them. Also these same OEMs have shown they can make ARM hardware lighter and thinner than an iPad. So they aren't the problem.

PC OEMs are probably already nervous - Android hasn't done so well in the tablet space, and Windows 8 is a brand-new OS. Any OEM would be prudent to be cautious in spending money developing and releasing a tablet into a new (Win8 has very different capabilities from iOS, Android), untested market.

The MS announced the Surface, which looks like a better tablet than the OEMs have announced so far. That's more than a gentle kick in the teeth.

The only premium Windows laptops you can get these days are business notebooks (not that I mind too terribly). I spent about 2,400 dollars on a Dell Precision M4600 because 1) The hardware is necessary for my CAD software and 2) Because there isn't any god damn consumer laptops that come with the same build or screen quality.

The best selling premium Windows notebooks are...MacBooks/Airs/Pros. Buy one and install Windows.

Err... Did you read pbrice's post? He/she was looking to do CAD, which usually means something like an Nvidia quadro GPU or an AMD FirePro GPU. A consumer card will not cut there...

The only premium Windows laptops you can get these days are business notebooks (not that I mind too terribly). I spent about 2,400 dollars on a Dell Precision M4600 because 1) The hardware is necessary for my CAD software and 2) Because there isn't any god damn consumer laptops that come with the same build or screen quality.

The best selling premium Windows notebooks are...MacBooks/Airs/Pros. Buy one and install Windows.

No.

I will not deal with a shitty TN panel, a keyboard with no num-pad, nor a single drive-bay when I can get both an mSATA and a 2.5 drive bay. Not to mention I get over 7 hours of battery life on my Precision M4600. Running Windows on a MBP that already barely gets over 6-7 hours under OS X, will easily drop it down to 4 or less because you can't use the switchable graphics.

I'm sick of having people telling me just to get a shitty little macbook and run Windows. Fuck. That.

PC OEMs are probably already nervous - Android hasn't done so well in the tablet space, and Windows 8 is a brand-new OS. Any OEM would be prudent to be cautious in spending money developing and releasing a tablet into a new (Win8 has very different capabilities from iOS, Android), untested market.

The MS announced the Surface, which looks like a better tablet than the OEMs have announced so far. That's more than a gentle kick in the teeth.

They are probably nervous. But this article paints iPad competitor failing, as one of Poor OEM hardware on both the Windows and Android side of the equation.

But in reality, that really isn't the problem. The failings of both the Android/Windows tablets has largely been a software problem, not a HW problem.

If (and it's a big if) Microsoft can deliver a high quality product with a responsive and usable OS at a competitive price point then I hope they can succeed. This from a long time Apple fanboy.

As for the OEM's, I really doubt that they can reorder their thinking. I can see them abandoning the high end to Microsoft and racing for the basement like they always do, filling the stores with cheap junk full of crapware.

But the whole point of the oem market is to sell windows cheaply. If you had a ton of cash to spend, you bought a mac. If you have $200 then you go to best buy and grab a cheap PC. Now microsoft is moving away from that, what's the incentive for anyone to buy a fancy PC that costs the same as a mac when they can buy a mac instead?

I think MS is trying to be the new Apple, which means Google is trying to be the new Microsoft. I guess we'll end up with a new software ecosystem, but based on cheap android devices and expensive Apple ones.

How well did Microsoft do with Zune? How well did Microsoft do with MSN? How well did Microsoft do with Bing? How well did Microsoft do with Kin? How well did Microsoft do with Windows Phone?

Zune sold well and made the company hundreds of millions. It wasn't an iPod killer, but it also wasn't a dud.

MSN is the world's biggest instant messaging service, and the things under the MSN nee Live brand are getting integrated into the OS. I'd say pretty damn good.

Bing now handles over 10% of all search requests in the US and 5% worldwide. That isn't dominating the market, but that's still not a small chunk of search.

Kin sadly died on the vine, and I'm sad about that. It was a cool idea, but honestly, it directly conflicted with MS's plan to take Windows Phone downmarket. Why have a feature phone directly compete with your planned smartphone marketspace? It's not that Kin failed, it never even had a chance to try before it was removed.

The Windows Phone continues to sell more and more volume, even if it's struggling with overall market share. MS obviously hasn't given up on their plans there, and WP8 by all accounts addresses essentially every technical weakness anyone has complained about the Windows Phone platform.

Also, the XBox 360 is a smashing success, and a huge inroad into the living room. The Kinekt, which will almost certainly be standard with the new console, has expanded its utility and success in ways nobody expected.

I see Surface as MS trying to justify its hybrid OS approach with Windows 8 which has fractured the windows community and to sell the idea behind the OS.

I see Surface as MS realizing that in a coming age of computing appliances like smartphones and iPads, you don't need a specialized software OS vendor. MS is afraid the very reason for their existence is disappearing, and they are trying to make themselves relevant.

I disagree completely, it isn't a coming age when Apple is selling millions of the type of devices for the past few years, and you do need a specialized OS vendor. The computing appliance model requires a specialized OS and services to work, hence why Windows 8 has a app store and integrates so many of MS other services.

MS is still relevant, despite being complacent with tablets and arrogant with its mobile OS. Windows 8 isn't about making MS relevant, it is about protecting windows from being eroded by Apple and Android by locking users into the Windows ecosystem while increasing margins by getting users to pay more to use windows over time than once when they buy their computer or an OS upgrade.

The Surface's success or failure as a a consumer product is not the point of this article.

The point is that Microsoft has created a product with design that far exceed anything managed by the PC OEMs.

Because there is more to a product than design and aesthetic it is possible the Surface could still suck.

But even if it does suck for other reasons that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's Surface has introduced a product that is far more thoughtfully designed than anything the PC manufacturers have built so far.

Even on the Intel side. PC OEM have made devices the same weight as the PRO, See the Samsung Series 7 Slate. It weighs the same 2LBs as the new Microsoft Pro, despite having a larger screen. If 2LBs is a failure, Microsoft has the same failure on it's hands.

Actually, that machine is a total failure. I have 4 different TabletPCs (note, not tablets -- TabletPCs. Real computers, running real operating systems, and no, not just windows, but also linux on a couple of them): a motion computing slate, an asus EP121, a Dell Latitude ST, and an X220 tablet. The latter 3 all support touch, which I almost always have turned off, because that isn't why I have them. I also have a touch only Dell netbook/tablet thingy.

Anyway, the Samsung Series 7 is a similar, though smaller, form factor to the EP121. While it is easier to hold, in terms of weight, it's actually quite uncomfortable to use. There is too much hardware, crammed into too small a space, so it gets hot. And crashes. A lot. This isn't software, this is thermal shutdown. I had 2, returned them both for the same thing. I know about a dozen others who did likewise.

I've been using TabletPCs since about 2004, so I'm well acquainted with their use cases. And honestly, as first a student and now a faculty member, almost nothing beats a pen for interacting with a computer, at a much more immediate level.

A finger is not a pointing device. I'm sorry, it isn't. Not if you want to get real work done, anyway. I readily concede there are people producing amazing things with iPads. But let us face reality: this is the exception. That's why it makes the news. For the vast majority, the iPad is a toy, not a serious work machine.

TabletPCs, which include the pro-level Surface, are work centric devices. Think doctors, students, teachers, scientists in the field, construction foremen, etc.

Tablets, which include anything running ARM, basically, are toys. Some people can make them an integral part of their workflow, but that's true of most tech toys.

On topic: I'm buying a pro Surface when they drop. Personally I find windows 7 a better TabletPC OS, but windows 8 a better Tablet OS. Personally, I wish they would drop the pro surface early, running windows 7, with a free upgrade to windows 8. The pen support in 7 is just more refined, in my experience, and the pro claims to have a pen. Hopefully Wacom, rather than N-trig.

"While many of the OEMs have produced Android tablets to try to compete with the iPad, they've also consistently failed to match its quality."

I'd have to disagree with that. My ASUS TF201 is well built and is every bit as good if not better than the iPad. The only issue with the tablet is the GPS but that's something I'll let slide. Microsoft's Surface is an interesting device but I don't believe it's quality is any better than any tablet out there. Many premium tablets match the quality and build of an iPad so I don't see why that statement was used.

"Many premium tablets match the quality and build of an iPad so I don't see why that statement was used"

If this really is the case, then why haven't any Android Tablets matched or even come close to the iPad's success.

The Surface tablet will be successful thanks to the apps. I know the irony here. Windows Phone is struggling due to lack of apps. However, come Windows 8 and WP8, the apps can be used across the board. The same app can be used in a smartphone, tablet or a laptop. The market for developers grows exponentially as compared to now on WP7. Plus there is a lot of developers that have been programming for Windows for the last couple of decades. Microsoft definitely has reasons to be optimistic about its unified strategy.

Why are so many IT writers just ASSUMING that Surface is any good? You've seen a very brief (and rough) demo — where the demo unit crashed —

which has nothing to do with the hardware.

Quote:

and nobody has been allowed to actually USE the thing. So why in the world do you say that Microsoft is "ensuring that Windows 8 will come to market with at least one good tablet"? You have zero basis for saying that. Yes, it looks nice. It may be great. I have no idea. But you don't, either. It's insane to keep giving Microsoft a pass with the ASSUMPTION that this is "one good tablet." It's dishonest.

We got to use it enough to know that the weight and thickness are right, the solid feel remarkable, the screen high quality, and the touch screen responsive.

It might not be perfect, but I'm not making that claim. The tablet itself

You're just making my point even more clear. You are ASSUMING that it will be a good product based on your 90 seconds or whatever. You don't know it will be good. It's irresponsible journalism. You should be asking WHY Microsoft isn't letting anybody actually use it and why nobody is getting to use those magical keyboards. Until then, anything you're saying about it is speculation and hope.

I believe "cautiously optimistic" is appropriate here, so I'm cautiously optimistic that the Surface Pro will be the tablet device I'm hoping for. It pushes the right buttons so far: active digitizer and stylus, capacitive touch layer, sweet FF, runs Windows which just so happens to be my music-making, gaming, and video encoding platform of choice (by necessity).

I'll keep the iPad for the kiddy apps, though. I also don't know why ICS tabs haven't made more of a splash. The OS is a joy to use and, as an example, the YouTube app makes the iOS version look like it was written by a slow person's pet. Maybe it's because there are four of them and people arent expecting to have to hunt down a tab running just the right version of Android.But whatever, ICS doesn't have handwriting or music apps worth a crap (except you, Sunvox, love you).

Reminds me of the glowing review Ars gave Windows Home Server, after it lost data and had multiple glitches. Ars just assumed that MS would fix the file system and they never did and finally just scrapped it. Similar with Zune, Kin, WP7 etc.